ArmInfo. The Armenian government interprets the decision of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in the case of nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company "in its own way."
"In connection with the decision of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce No. EA 2025/121 of 22.07.2025, we inform you that the scope of the issues (dispute) considered in the urgent case differs from the purposes of the decision to appoint an interim manager and the scope of actions that the latter must take.
In particular, the appointment of an interim manager pursues, among other things, the prevention of the risks of deliberate creation of an energy crisis, уensuring public order, eliminating possible risks threatening state security, уpreventing the concealment of abuses in ENA and preventing further abuses.
While respecting the interim measures applied by foreign arbitration awards, everyone is obliged to be guided by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia and international treaties establishing the rules and procedures for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards>, the Armenian Cabinet of Ministers said in a statement.
Earlier today, it was reported that the head of the Tashir Group of Companies, Samvel Karapetyan, and his family won an arbitration dispute against the Armenian government over the nationalization of the ENA. This was reported by Karapetyan's representatives.
The case was heard at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) on the basis of the Agreement between Armenia and Cyprus on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments of January 18, 1995. A representative of the Government of the Republic of Armenia also participated in the hearing.
The court ruled that Armenia is obliged to refrain from applying the amendments recently adopted by parliament to the laws "On Energy" and "On the Public Services Regulatory Authority", as well as from any further steps aimed at seizing ENA assets. The arbitration concluded that urgent protective measures were required because the actions of the Republic of Armenia "raise serious doubts about compliance with the Agreement on Mutual Protection of Investments between Armenia and Cyprus". The arbitration also noted that "in the absence of urgent protective measures, it will be difficult for the plaintiffs to obtain full compensation for damages if they lose control over the company or, even worse, cease to be its owners". The decision of the emergency arbitration is subject to mandatory execution by the government of the Republic of Armenia. The head of the Board of Directors of the company, Narek Karapetyan, in turn, explained that in this way the court prohibited the government of Armenia from confiscating or selling ESA assets, changing the composition of the company's governing bodies, revoking licenses for its activities and in any way restricting the natural business activity of ENA.
